It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
"The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have announced their newborn son is to be called George Alexander Louis. He will be known as His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/24/prince-george-alexander-louis-royal-baby
He eats £10 burgers for his dinner...sorry, wrong thread!
I think what you mean to say was "He eats £10 burgers, which the British taxpayer provides, for his dinner"
:P
Indeed, and then the twit tweets it on Twitter! We're all in it together indeed!
"You want fries with that?" :-))
I wouldn't worry about Osborne. You'll be paying for this kid for the rest of your life and it'll be a damn sight more than a £10 burger. Blanket coverage of a benefits baby. Amazing how the press are so adept at spin.
I can hear the fury of Daily Express readers up and down the land with that post ;-)
Absolutely. They're probably still sat around in their party hats while I hand out change and sandwiches to people younger than William, who spend every night on the street. It really f**** me off. I don't care if it costs me £1 a year to keep the monarchy, I'd rather give the £1 to someone who hasn't seen a meal in a week.
I'm a conservative with a social conscience, but I have become more agrarian over time - we've no need for leeches like the Duke of Kent etc. I'm still a monarchist though and I don't begrudge them the £1 or less. I just don't think that we should have to pay for all the minor royals too, and I'd guess many here would agree with this sentiment.
Why thank you, I feel that way myself (even though my screen name is a play on the lead villain from Dalton's proposed 3rd film). It is nice indeed to actually have noble British (Welsh side) bloodlines :)
I honestly don't much care what Will and Kate name their boy, as long as he is happy and healthy and they are hands on parents who rely as little as possible on a nanny, that's what really counts. If I did have a say, I would have also preferred James for obvious reasons, although I am just reading George it is.
That's quite brilliant.
I've got an idea for a book and I'm pretty sure it's going to be the next War and Peace the trouble is I never have time to write it as I always have to go to work.
Vote for RC7 everyone and then you can just apply for his innovative 'creative genius benefit' and let the taxpayer fund you to sit around the house all day writing your opus.
It's brave policies such as this that will drag Britain out of recession. Well done Sir.
Don't do a Daily Mail Wizard. You're better than that.
Just because I take umbrage at my money being spunked on people to sit on their arse all day doesn't make me a Daily Mail reader.
Apart from being a natural traditionalist I have no particular feelings either way for the royals but at least they only cost me a quid a year. That's a bargain compared to what I'm expected to fork out to fund an underclass of chavs.
Theres a slight difference in welfare for the disabled and people who are genuinely starving to death and what you were advocating - paying prospective JK Rowlings to sit around coming up with the next Harry Potter.
I'm not advocating people 'sitting around'. I'm merely stating that the welfare state can be of aid to creatives who simply can't deliver on their talent while holding down a full time job or perhaps mothering/fathering a child. It gives people the opportunity to spend a month working hard, while getting by on a pittance, but enough of a pittance to live. It's not like all these 'arty' types who are vilified by the right are sitting around on a golden egg. I know this is like red rag to a bull for some people, but I thought your right-leaning rhetoric was just semi-comic bravado. You remove the help of the state and you lose the potential economic value of the future.
I'm not saying everyone is the next J.K. Rowling, but I for one don't begrudge a fraction of my tax helping them on their way. Yes there are utterly advantageous c****, but why let the arsehole tactics of the underclass effect the chances of everybody? This is a group of people who will always be selfish, loathsome idiots. Stopping their welfare will not all of a sudden force them into work and a life of tax-paying. Unless you're planning on digging a ditch and throwing them all in it, I don't see the value in f****** over those who may need the help of the state for the betterment of their careers - which in turn fuels the economy.
I can understand the economic value to the nation of, say, student loans whereby people get a tangible qualification that will lead to a good job so they will repay the nation in tax that they will pay but I fail to see how your scheme works at all.
Who decides that these 'creatives' have enough talent to deserve funding? Do you just fill out a form and they take your word for it or is there a Britain's Got Talent panel from the DSS who decide?
I'm not sure the government should be speculating the nation's money on 'potential' - that is not the role of government at all.
Michael Cimino made the Deer Hunter for christ's sake so you would say he had proven his talent already. Didnt stop his next film bankrupting UA did it? The idea that the government should be funding people to indulge their passion for sculpture or poetry in the hope of discovering the next Michelangelo is frankly ludicrous.
It's not a 'scheme'. I'm saying that the welfare state, despite it's inherent flaws, is much more necessary than handing out between £30-40m to one family. I don't think it's justifiable in 2013.
I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.
Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.
Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.
1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.
There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.
Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.
But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.
Pray tell, what was the villain's name? I know about The Property of A Lady (1991) projected third Dalton film, but not a lot else. I always wondfered how you picked your name, Sir Henry!
I think that George is nice and taditional - just how I like it. @TheWizardOfIce and I are are part of the same party, I believe.
No more James as monarchs, please!!! Have we learned nothing from 1688-90, the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Battle of the Boyne 1690. From there came parliamentary soverignty and the end of monarchical absolutism and power and thank God for it! James II was trying to bring back absolutism to Britain. The royals would never countenance using that name again and nor should they!
[History Lecture over]
I aim to please. Plus, I'm a History and Law graduate. Can you tell?
Not that you wouldn't notice ;-)
As if you didn't know!